Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/20/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Governor's Council on Human and Sex Trafficking Stats | |
| HB68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 68-CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
2:08:40 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 68, "An Act relating to sex trafficking;
establishing the crime of patron of a victim of sex trafficking;
relating to the crime of human trafficking; relating to
prostitution; relating to sentencing for sex trafficking, patron
of a victim of sex trafficking, and human trafficking;
establishing the process for vacating judgments for certain
convictions of prostitution and misconduct involving a
controlled substance; relating to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to permanent fund
dividends for certain individuals whose convictions are vacated;
and providing for an effective date."
2:09:36 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, provided information during the hearing on HB
68, on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by
request of the governor. He directed attention to a document,
titled "HB 68 Human and Sex Trafficking," [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. He stated that this document provides a
summary of what the proposed legislation would do, but he
advised that the document is not comprehensive, and with any
detailed questions the legislation itself should be referred to.
MR. SKIDMORE directed attention to the left-hand column on page
1 of the document, which outlined how the crimes of sex
trafficking in the first, second, and third degree would be
addressed by the proposed legislation. He explained the details
and definitions of the unclassified and classified crimes
associated with sex trafficking. He differentiated between the
charges in relation to the use of force and whether the victim
was of legal age. He reiterated the importance of looking at
definitions when trying to understand the legislation.
2:14:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how forcing a person to take a
controlled substance would be prosecuted.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that this would not fall under force, but
in the other elements of inducing or causing. He directed
attention to the bottom of page 2 of the document, which listed
seven factors associated with inducing or causing. Included in
the list was "providing a controlled substance to or withholding
a controlled substance from the other person." He provided the
statute that defines "force" in Alaska. In response to a
follow-up question, he confirmed that the distribution of
controlled substances is a crime defined in statute. He
reiterated that when the distribution of a controlled substance
is done for the purpose of "inducing or causing" another person
to engage in sex trafficking or human trafficking, that offense
would be elevated to a more serious crime.
2:16:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER inquired about the distinction between
"providing" and "forcing" someone to take a drug, in terms of
the severity of the punishment.
MR. SKIDMORE expressed uncertainty whether forcing someone to
take a drug is expressly addressed in statute. In response to a
follow-up question, he stated that an individual who forced
another person to take drugs would be guilty of distribution.
CHAIR VANCE recalled the testimony from a survivor of sex
trafficking that recounted the forceful injection of a
controlled substance against her will. She asked whether this
conduct is addressed in statute.
MR. SKIDMORE expressed the understanding that this could be
prosecuted as an assault in addition to misconduct concerning a
controlled substance; however, he stated that he would need to
review the statutes on this.
2:19:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the understanding that forceful
injection would qualify as an assault. He questioned whether
there is something in statute or in the proposed legislation
that would capture the second action.
MR. SKIDMORE expressed uncertainty and reiterated that he would
have to review the statutes. He further discussed the
definition of "serious physical injury" in statute. He stated
that there would have to be analysis on whether the drugs
amounted to a serious physical injury, and this would need to be
done on a case-by-case basis.
2:20:39 PM
MR. SKIDMORE returned attention to page 1 of the document and
proceeded to the next column to describe the crime of being a
patron of a victim of sex trafficking. He stated that this
shows how the classification of the crimes committed by patrons
of victims of sex trafficking would be addressed. He stated
that these would be considered sex felonies; therefore, subject
to the more serious penalty described under the previous column.
2:22:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY considered a scenario in which a patron of
sex trafficking asked the victim whether he/she was a victim of
sex trafficking and the victim answered "no." He asked whether
that would be sufficient proof against exhibiting "reckless
disregard".
MR. SKIDMORE said he could not answer that question "in a
vacuum," as it would depend on circumstances.
CHAIR VANCE recalled that testimony from the Alaska State
Troopers had indicated many patrons do not realize that sex
workers could be victims of sex trafficking. She questioned the
likelihood that a regular patron would fall under one of the
seven [factors of inducing or causing].
MR. SKIDMORE expressed uncertainty concerning a percentage;
however, he emphasized that it is illegal to purchase sex from
another individual. He explained that establishing "reckless
disregard" would be difficult and would need to be analyzed on a
case-by-case basis. In response to a follow-up question, he
explained that HB 68 would increase the penalty of purchasing
sex from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class A misdemeanor. The
selling of sex, he said, would remain a Class B misdemeanor. He
elaborated on the classifications.
2:28:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how two 17-year-old individuals
engaged in the selling and purchasing of sex would be
prosecuted.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the seller could be guilty of
prostitution and charged with a Class B misdemeanor, whereas the
purchaser could be guilty of prostitution and charged with a
Class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that the 17-year-old
individuals are under 18 years of age.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified his misstatement, acknowledging that both
individuals could be guilty of patronizing a victim of sex
trafficking.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER sought to confirm that the person
selling sex would be penalized less severely than the person
buying it.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed the statement.
2:31:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about a scenario in which an
underaged sex worker lied about his/her age.
MR. SKIDMORE directed attention to page 4, line 14 of the bill,
under the provision for patron of a victim of sex trafficking,
which read as follows:
(b) In a prosecution under (a)(2) of this section, it
is an affirmative defense that, at the time of the
alleged offense, the defendant
(1) reasonably believed the person to be 18 years
of age or older; and
(2) undertook reasonable measures to verify that
the person was 18 years of age or older.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY opined that more responsibility should be
put on the patrons of prostitution. He expressed concern that
the burden of proof for "reckless disregard" was essentially a
"get out of jail free card" for those purchasing sex. He
inquired about the inclusion of the word "reckless".
MR. SKIDMORE defined "reckless" as the mens rea, or the mental
state of the perpetrator, which is an essential element of
anything in a criminal statute. He stated that the totality of
the circumstances would need to be investigated.
2:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the importance of a victim's
mindset in identifying themselves as a victim of sex trafficking
and whether it could impact prosecution.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed that this would complicate any prosecution
if the victim did not identify themselves as a victim of sex
trafficking. He reiterated that it would depend on the totality
of circumstances.
2:39:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH directed attention to Section 4 of HB 68 and
sought to verify that the presumptive sentence for an
unclassified felony was 20 to 99 years.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that the penalty for sex trafficking in
the first degree, as proposed in the legislation, would be an
unclassified felony with a presumptive sentencing range of 20 to
30 years for a first offense, with a maximum of 99 years.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH referenced subsection (a), paragraph (3), in
Section 4 of the bill, which provides that a person commits the
crime of sex trafficking in the first degree if the person
manages, supervises, controls, or owns, or is in association
with a prostitution enterprise or a place of prostitution. He
sought to verify that neither force nor age was referenced in
this provision.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that the provision would not carry the
element of force or being under the age of 20; nonetheless, it
is referring to instances in which the selling of sex as an
enterprise is expanded.
2:44:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH considered a scenario in which one sex
worker referred a client to another sex worker. He asked
whether this could be considered "organizing" for commercial
sexual conduct.
MR. SKIDMORE answered in the negative, as making references or
sharing references would not be considered "organized;" however,
coming together as partners would be considered organized.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH clarified the hypothetical scenario and
asked whether it would be considered organized.
MR. SKIDMORE reiterated that as a prosecutor, he would not feel
comfortable prosecuting the case.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH pointed out that there are various
references to "value" in the proposed legislation. He asked
whether the distinction between more or less than $200 would be
based on the price charged.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that $200 was based on the cost of moving
a sex worker from one major hub community in Alaska to another.
Whether this demarcation is sufficient, he said, would be a
policy call.
2:48:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD observed that alcohol and kidnapping are
not referenced in the bill. She asked for the rationale.
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that providing alcohol to another
person is not illegal unless the person is a minor; nonetheless,
he acknowledged that this could be a considerable factor in a
coercive situation. He discussed kidnapping, noting that the
crime of kidnapping is an unclassified felony under AS
11.41.300. He stated that adding this to the bill would be a
policy call. In response to a follow-up question, he stated
that the addition of kidnapping or the use of alcohol in
relation to sex trafficking could increase the sentencing. He
indicated that the answer was circumstantial and would require
complex analysis.
2:53:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed concern that a sex worker who
engaged his/her friend to come along on a job could be guilty of
"organizing" [a prostitution enterprise] and charged with an
unclassified felony. He asked whether this could be a likely
outcome.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that as a prosecutor, he would consider
the two sex workers in the hypothetical scenario as organized.
He added that whether the sex workers would be convicted of sex
trafficking depends on the court, the jury, and plea
negotiations. He reiterated that this would also be up to how
the legislature classifies these crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY suggested that a sex worker may be safer
with a friend. He expressed interest in amending the language.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD disagreed with Representative Gray's
perspective. She expressed alarm that this could "shut the bill
down." She expressed support for the legislation and questioned
why she is getting inundated with emails concerning this topic.
MR. SKIDMORE encouraged legislators to carefully consider the
source of the information they receive. He addressed a past
effort to legalize prostitution, recognizing misrepresentation
of the law concerning this.
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 68 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJUD Council Data Presentation 3.20.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
|
| GCHST-Data-Summary-Document.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 68 - Sex and Human Trafficking Informational Sheet 3.17.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |